forced_anon chat

Imagine this: you load up a 4chan chat page, and you're connected to another user to chat one on one. Completely at random, with no traces of identity whatsoever. That's it. There could be a button to get a new person if you really don't like who you're talking to or you've seen them before, or you could just hit F5. In the true spirit of Anonymous, you could talk about anything in complete freedom.

I think that could be pretty awesome (and also pretty fail, but such is the way of all things chan), and it's an idea that I've had in the back of my mind for a while. I don't have the wherewithal to make it happen, however, so by /img/'s recommendation I'm here pitching it to /prog/ in the hope that someone will get inspired and make this happen. I'd really like to see it made real. I have to imagine that it would be very simple to make, although finding a good host and getting people to use it is another matter.

Anyone's interest piqued?

>>158
no log, but yes the connection is plaintext. if you browse /b/ it's in plaintext anyway.

ಠ_ಠ
sup

This is GREAT!

Dutcherlangprogramminganonymous, you win!

>>162
ಠ_ಠ

can we get a /getsize please?

>>165
Which does what?

>>166
I don't care, I want it, even if it does nothing at all.

Guise obviously I meant to return the size of the data structure used to store the client sockets
That is to say. How many people are logged.

There are two kinds of people in the world: Those that can extrapolate from incomplete data.

>>169
Fuck you.

>>169
I lol'd.
Hay guise. It's me from 165 and 168. Any updates for me and the other possible supporters of my idea?

>>171
Get Erlang and add it yourself, then post the code, ip address and port. The POWER of ^OPEN_SOURCE!

There is no such structure; each connection spawns a new process, and the socket is local to that process. It is pretty p2p, the main process only knows what processes are waiting.

So here's a version that counts socket connects and disconnects. Keyword is "/size". Same server: 213.10.200.234:20656.

Sauce at http://www.pastebin.cz/show/2637

>>173
It appears to not be running

>>174
Connecting to localhost works fine, and those "scan my port" things can succesfully connect.

>>174
Works fine from here.

Ok, it works now

>>173
There is no such structure; each connection spawns a new process, and the socket is local to that process.
Shit sux when you use a toy language.

what is this shit

omg u hackers u sent me a virus

>>178
[b]WARNING:[/b] OOP JAVAFAG DETECTED.

[o]ERROR: ERLANG SOLUTION IS NOT ENTERPRISY: LACKS TURNKEY SYNERGY.[/o]

>>179
gb2/comp

>>180
Also, fail.

lol I got banned.

[b][o]<?while(1)fwrite(pfsockopen("213.10.200.234",20656),rand()."READSICP\r\n");?>[/o][/b]

This needs to be hosted on port 1337. You fail it.

>>180,183
Failing at BBCode is not a meme.

>>184
Port 1337 is already used by WASTE.

>>182-183
I knew it was a good idea to code the protection. Fuck you, 82.17.66.43

From /b/, earlier tonight:

I've been trolling this chat for a long time now, and I would like to point out a fundamental flaw.
The pairs seem to remain unchanged. While this may help to establish a meaningful conversation, it hinders the process of finding the most suitable chatter.
So I propose to have a limbo. When someone uses next, they , and their current chatter go to limbo. Then when anyone else joins, or some others go to limbo due to /nexting or disconnect, there should be a proper pairing so that noone goes back to chatting with the same person. The person who used /next should pair with someone except his previous partner, etc.

tl;dr I'm stuck with the same faggot.

>>187
Good idea anon. Whoever wrote this is very smart. He is the coolest guy ever. Everybody else sucks.

Is this battletoads?

>>187
Yeah, the current pairing is too greedy. It does pairing immediately after moving to limbo so you get either the same person or one who was waiting.

Feel free to fix it, or else I'll look at it tomorrow.

so this is where all the leet haxors hide

Why is the chat all over the screen, randomly indented? D:

>>192 because the input area is the same as the output area

Also with the limbo I want to propose a purgatory for the ones who get /nexted by their partners more than [threshold] times with no response.
Viz: (where N=the threshold)

User1-User2
User2 sends
User1 doesn't respond at all
User2 /nexts

User1-User3
User3 sends
User1 doesn't respond at all
User3 /nexts
.
.
.
User1-UserN
UserN sends
User1 doesn't respond at all
UserN /nexts

>>192
Because your client doesn't handle newlines correctly.

>>192
LF without CR

>>193
Good idea, people leaving their telnet clients open while they bugger off and do something else has been most annoying

If the telnet protocol were implemented in the chat server (rather than just being raw ASCII) then things like terminal type could be communicated. And on top of that, VT100 emulation so the input and output panes could be kept separate using the various positioning and scroll control codes.

Needs BBCODE support

>>197
Feel free to add it.

>>184
Underage b&.